“If some queer-radical types object to the film on political or ideological grounds, there’s a sense in which they’re right to do so,” writes Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir. “This movie definitely isn’t aimed at them.” Why would they object?

The reason, it appears, lies in a spoiler that’s hinted at in the trailer.

+
Camron continues:

The film’s marketing is clearly positioning it as a relatable universal tale, centered around two upper-income, middle-aged lesbian moms played by Annette Bening and Julianne Moore. For director and co-writer Lisa Cholodenko, it’s also an explicit play for the mainstream — which could clearly benefit from a storyteller of her talents. (O’Hehir casually calls the film “one of the most compelling and rewarding portraits of a middle-class American marriage in cinema history, as well as one of the funniest.”)

Worth noting: Focus Features is marketing the film as a relatable universal tale, but they’re also specifically reaching out to the GLBT market (if you’re in one of the early-release cities, you’ll see their ads on this site and other gay sites right now!). This directly contradicts O’Hehir’s claim that Focus Features doesn’t anticipate the film appealing to us “queer radicals.” They’re aiming right for us.

But did you watch the aforementioned trailer/spoiler? Are you withholding your guaranteed love with visions of Jessica Stein and Chasing Amy dancing in your head?

The action happens, so to speak, when the couple’s children track down the sperm donor that is their biological father — and apparently Julianne Moore has an affair with him. (In the trailer, this looks like chaste kissing.) With this twist, writes O’Hehir, “Cholodenko and co-writer Stuart Blumberg capitulate — in some people’s view — to a whole set of ‘Celluloid Closet’-type homophobic stereotypes, and possibly lend aid and comfort to the right-wing view of homosexuality as a ‘lifestyle choice.'” That, at least, appears to have been the complaints of some of Salon’s commenters — not a famously enlightened bunch, alas, but an interesting claim nonetheless.

In other words, does every Hollywood movie involving a lesbian have to suggest she really needs cock?

Oh, the cocks we’ve endured! From Henry & Tina (The L Word) to Aidan & Spencer/Ashley (South of Nowhere) to the de-gayification of chick flicks like Whip It! and Fried Green Tomatoes or anything from our Top Ten ’90s Movies Beloved by Girls Who Turned Out Gay list, we know from cocks in movies we thought would be more about vadge.

AE: A lot of lesbian films or films with lesbian story lines are criticized when one of the leads cheats with a man. Are you worried about a lesbian backlash to Kids from within the community?
LC: No, not really. [Laughs] To me, the whole story is coherent and about something very specific and I don’t really have an agenda. I never meant for this to be a political film in that sense. It came from a personal place and in that sense it’s sort of more an auteur film. What excites me is the possibility that this kind of family can be seen on a wide screen and reach a mainstream.

Eek! The “it’s not a political film” claim, used by queers all over the world to defend behaviors like being queer but refusing to stand up for gay rights. Taken out of context, that answer might seem so strange. But Lisa is a killer filmmaker with a resumè that includes High Art and Laurel Canyon, and she’s a lesbian mom herself — the woman knows what she’s doing.

Why, after all this, do we still expect to really really like this movie?

Because Julie Goldman & Brandy Howard saw it, and they really, really, really, really liked it. If you’ve never seen an episode of Julie & Brandy In Your Box Office, you may not be aware that they hate practically every movie ever.

That’s right. Julie & Brandy with the “an anger and rage issue,” and “a chip on [their] shoulder that comes from this town which is Hollywood and this business which is the business of show.” Julie & Brandy who view films through “glasses colored with vadge-lesbo-angry-rage” and who compared seeing Avatar, Hot Tub Time Machine, Shutter Island and Sex & the City 2 to various unpleasant sexual experiences including but not limiting to a “high school fingering,” “a finger up a gay guy’s a**hole” and “an empty box,” really liked this movie.

Autostraddle.com sent Julie Goldman & Brandy Howard to the Los Angeles premiere a few weeks back (yes, us queer radicals were invited to the premiere & press junket!), and although their double-fisted review hasn’t been written yet [UPDATE: HERE IT IS] I talked to Julie about it when we saw her in San Francisco in June. Specifically, I asked her about The Cock. Julie Fucking Goldman told me, “You know, I was very worried about that too. Very concernerd. But it worked. I was expecting that to totally upset me, but they made it work. You’ll see.”

Other gay websites slightly more on top of their shit than we are have echoed those sentiments:

OUT: “Intimate, though still thoroughly entertaining… a comedy that touches on the real joys and challenges of being a modern family in America.”

AfterElton:It absolutely lives up to the hype. It’s a flat-out terrific movie, by turns funny, moving, and — most of all — extraordinarily “real.”

But since when has a trailer ever appealed to us queer radicals (Wolfe Video releases notwithstanding)? We’ve developed a keen attention to subtext, favoring girl-power flicks with queer undertones and skeptically eyeing any movie with a lesbian kiss in the trailer. Julie & Brandy gave high marks to The Runaways, in part for the lesbian subtext, just as I was surprised to spot plenty of queer themes in the recent Diablo Cody-penned thriller Jennifer’s Body.

If The Cock In the Trailer gets straight audiences into the theater, then hurrah — any time a female-directed female-focused movie that isn’t mostly about omg expensive shoes and/or men gets this kind of warm critical reception and hopefully subsequent box office gold, we all win.

Riese is the 33-year-old CEO, CFO and Editor-in-Chief of Autostraddle.com as well as an award-winning writer, blogger, fictionist, copywriter, video-maker and aspiring cyber-performance artist who grew up in Michigan, lost her mind in New York City, and now lives in The Bay Area. Her work has appeared in nine books including "The Bigger the Better The Tighter The Sweater: 21 Funny Women on Beauty, Body Image & Other Hazards Of Being Female," magazines including Marie Claire and Curve, and all over the web including Nerve, Bitch, Emily Books and Jezebel. She had a very popular personal blog once upon a time, and then she recapped The L Word, and then she had the idea to make this place, and now here we all are!

69 Comments

I am VERY excited to see this movie. As the unofficial Autostraddle den mother, I am a bit older than all you autopups and I feel like this movie is aimed at my very teeny tiny demographic…lesbians in LONG-term relationship who also have kids. Sure, Bette, Tina and Helena had kids on the L Word but they had the invisible kind. I have the real kind that are omnipresent and wake me up way too early with zealous renditions of “Oklahoma”. Anyway, we will get a babysitter and we will see this movie. Also, we should all support GLBT movies and filmmakers anyway, right?

I look forward to hearing your opinion, Vikki! I am part of your teeny tiny demographic, and am a little nervous about a movie that shows a lesbian mom kissing a sperm donor. Ick. But yay for being woken up by tiny beings! Our son has a lovely song on repeat when he wakes up: Mommy, Mama, I awake! Mommy, Mama, I awake! Mommy, Mama, I awake! It sounds like your house is just a quiet.

In Minnesota, children of AI can’t meet their donors. It’s not an option. We liked this when we first had kids but now that our kids are a bit older and we are more secure as parents, I admit that I have a lot of curiosity about the donor. I never imagined that I’d want to meet him but I do.

We chose an ID consent donor, so that when our son is 18, he (not us) can request the donor’s information from the bank. I’m really hoping the info is accurate in 16 years, but I guess anything is better than nothing. We also have a Yahoo group with 6 other moms who used the same donor. I feel like there is a good connection going on so far, and if it eventually includes the donor, I think I’ll be ok with that. I recall the anxiety of wanting an anonymous donor so I’d feel more secure as a parent (I’m the non-bio mom) but ID consent won out because I knew I wanted our kid(s) to have as much info as possible about their genes and stuff. It’s tough that you never had that option in your state. Hmph!

the idea of building a little community around a shared donor is super interesting. queering family in a way i’d never really considered, but a way that may very well enter into my life not all that far down the road. thank you for sharing your experiences (vikki too!)

I have them in storage, he still has more if we need it, but I was wondering if you(privately-just easier), Vikki and Meredith, could talk about your experiences and the process with me. I know only one other lesbian couple who has done this, and I have lots of “what to expect” questions. I’m on Facebook (in autostraddle’s friends, Leah W)
Thanks ladies! And thanks AS for having a community for all of us to meet like this!

Cholodenko had a big hand (zing!) in my coming out, thanks to my surreptitious and repeated late night High Art rentals at some point when I was 15 or 16 just to watch that sex scene with Ally Sheedy and what’s her name the blondeish one.

Anyway, having seen that and Laurel Canyon, Cholodenko seems to have a preoccupation with sexually explorative infidelities. But thank god she does, or else i’d probably still be straight. In High Art Radha Mitchell’s character strikes up an affair with her dyketastic upstairs neighbor. And in Laurel Canyon, Frances McDormand’s character almost bangs her own son’s fiancee (why did this not come to fruition? why?).

I’m excited to see it. Like, I’ll probably go see it tomorrow excited. Holy shit, can Julie and Brandy tell me how much Moore on Bening action there is? I NEED TO KNOW. I mean, yeah it’s about a family, that’s sweet, look we’re normal, etc.

I read autostraddle because a well-done, mainstream blog written by and for lesbians is leagues better than most everything else out there readily available for afternoon perusals. However, I really take issue with your understanding of queer here, and am so disheartened by it that I will crawl out from under my lurking rock and comment. Queer does not equal gay. And by equating the two, you undermine a lot of work people have done to get a truer concept of queer out there. Focus Films marketing is directed at exactly the mainstream GLBT communities that will pay money to see this film alongside their straight friends and neighbors. I don’t take issue with this film, I haven’t seen this film, but I do think its important to remind ourselves that there is a dominant mainstream gay culture that runs the great risk of oppressing (whether intentionally or not) those that don’t fit within its paradigm. This film may be many things, among them perhaps a great way to open up white lesbian families to the glory of cinematic representation, but QUEER it arguably isn’t.

Sorry for the long post. My love to the autostraddle community and writers.

This is a particular passage where the article seemed to equate the two:

“Worth noting: Focus Features is marketing the film as a relatable universal tale, but they’re also specifically reaching out to the GLBT market (if you’re in one of the early-release cities, you’ll see their ads on this site and other gay sites right now!). This directly contradicts O’Hehir’s claim that Focus Features doesn’t anticipate the film appealing to us “queer radicals.” They’re aiming right for us.”

I do think this film is politically significant, despite the director’s intent. It’s just not reaching to a queer audience. And, as I’ve suggested above, its important to make the distinction between a mainstream LGBT project and a queer one.

I’m with Dina on wanting to understand your definition of “queer”. I’m a white lesbian mom who also identifies with the word “queer”. Language…tricky, tricky language.

I also wonder if the “queer” might not be the most important word in this equation but actually “radical”. I would identify as “queer” but not as “radical”, at least I know I’m not a radical anymore. The fact is that all of this language exists on a continuum. Mainstream straight communities might very well see a white lesbian family as “radical” while my pals from the Avengers would clearly not. Language is absolutely important but it is also relative.

I’m also really interested to hear your definition of queer. I tend to use it a lot on this site instead of LGBT in order to be more inclusive. I think queer is a larger umbrella term that includes people who are not lesbian, gay, bi or trans. What does it mean to you?

I think autostraddle is here just taking the phrase “queer radicals” from Salon and using it in slight jest – hence keeping it in quotes. People throw around terms like queer all the time in a variety of meanings and contexts — sometimes people use it because it’s easier than going into alphabet soup (not that I’m saying this is correct) but I don’t think anyone here would believe that the autostraddle team doesn’t know the difference, especially from this article.

that being said I would really like to see this movie. I think it’s great that such a cute, funny, commercial film features a lesbian couple (despite the cock issue) and mia wasikowska and julianne moore give it more points in my book.

Judith Butler: Queer has become “the discursive rallying point for younger lesbians and gay men and, in yet other contexts, for lesbian interventions and, in yet other contexts, for bisexuals and straights for whom the term expresses an affiliation with antihomophobic politics. That it can become such a discursive site whose uses are not fully constrained in advance ought to be safe-guarded not only for the purposes of continuing to democratize queer politics, but also to expose, affirm, and rework the specific historicity of the term.”

Activist Karl Knapper: “Queerness is about acknowledging and celebrating difference, embracing what sets you apart. A straight person can’t be gay, but a straight person can be queer.”

Also, Wikipedia, for what it’s worth: “The term is still considered by some to be offensive and derisive, and by others as a re-appropriated term used to describe a sexual orientation and/or gender identity or gender expression that does not conform to heteronormative society… It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows “queer”-identifying people to avoid the sometimes strict boundaries that surround other labels. In this context, “queer” is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for “queer” heterosexuals as well as “non-queer” homosexuals.”

—-

So I think queer means, to me, “not straight.” Like the idea of “queer sex” which Pat Califia writes about a lot — that you don’t need to be gay to have queer sex, if that makes sense.

Anyhow we used “queer radicals” in quotes, referencing the Salon article, as Freddie points out

I was so ready to boycott this movie until I saw the picture of Lisa Cholodenko. !!! Frackin’ adorable!

Why can’t Julianne Moore just stick to playing Jack Donaghy’s ex-girl friend from Waltham?! It’s funny when she fakes a terrible Boston accent; not so much when she fakes teh gay. Her body language seems really inauthentic to MY right brain.

Because America is not ready for a lezbro like Lisa Cholodenko to be the star. But this movie maybe will get them closer to being ready for that, at which time CLEARLY Lisa’s next logical step would be to produce The Nicest Thing.

I think there is a bit too much going on with people decrying the questioning of the film’s clearly pandering subplot. If people want to question it they should. I question it because it is a blatant attempt to get a bigger audience. As a straight friend of mine said, after the trailer, “Why do these movies about lesbians think I won’t watch them unless one of the lesbians lets a guy have sex with her?” That is a fair question. My friend is one of those people who does not like to be pandered to. If there had been majority of films in which a lesbian does not sleep with the guy, then maybe this would be more intriguing. Instead it is the cliche to end all cliches. Anyways people really should see it first. But the fact that the film goes there yet again for the umpteenth time spells cheap attempt to get mainstream audience. Will know for sure in a few days.

So much agreement. Ever since learning this spoiler (which I kind of saw coming as soon as I read the plot synopsis waaay back when–it’s that cliche of a twist) I haven’t been able to muster any interest in seeing this film. I just can’t. I’m tired of being kicking in the face with cocks. And I do think we have a right to question why it was necessary for the film to trod this well worn path once again.

So in sum… want to be mean, man-hating radical queers together, Chris HD?

No seriously, there’s a full on offensive to ensure that we all REALLY LOVE THIS FILM. I don’t need another willy, I’d rather watch the syrupy Imagine Me and You again than indulge in another lesbian cock-fest.

i just want to see julianne moore (and also annette bening) naked/in a relationship so bad i don’t even know what to do about it. THIS DOES OPEN HERE TOMORROW I JUST FOUND OUT! PANIC!

also, i am excited for this film’s potential to mainstream. i feel like a two-mom fam treated with a healthy dose of humor, realism and a-list acting could make for a powerfully subversive crossover. in that NPR interview when cholodenko notes her insistence on high-profile actresses, it’s exciting to feel faith in her strategy here. cholodenko’s consciously apolitical film will likely be her most political to date, in the best way possible, it sounds like.

yeah, i mean, i am feeling nervous about the affair with ruffalo and how it will fit into the plot in a way that won’t make me cringe and leave angry. i have a feeling it might be a more nuanced/minor event than the previews and such make it out to be, played up for the purposes of the mainstream. which, ew. but also, what matters to me, is if her identity changes. i think the idea is interesting enough, given his status as the kids’ bio father. it sounds like ruffalo is the film’s catalyst for a lot of things, not just whatever happens sexually, so i hope i walk away feeling like the story couldn’t be told in another way.

also, if moore were to cheat with a woman, that would mean a lot more gay moore sex scenes. i’m kind of heartbroken that screentime is wasting showing whatever happens between her and ruffalo when SHE COULD JUST BE ROLLING AROUND WITH ANNETTE BENING.

why am i the only person freaking out about this? maybe i am just sexually frustrated.

One thing I haven’t seen pointed out is that there *are* lesbian identified women out there who *do* sleep with men. Whether or not that’s… politically expedient, I guess? is another discussion, but it’s not completely unheard of.

True. But. There also really *are* promiscuous gay men, loud and angry black women, and straight women whose only goal in life is to find a man and have babies. That doesn’t mean we can’t have a conversation about how problematic those tropes are when they’re repeated endlessly in our stories, especially to the exclusion of other representations of those groups.

Yeah, and they’re bisexuals whether they call themselves that or not. They’re also the most over-represented group in the media. If they want to make a movie about bisexuals then call her bisexual.

Having the femme Moore ride cock after years with her female partner is both sexist and homophobic! Chelowhatever and the, desperate for representation, lesbians, can spin it whatever way they want but its the same old shit!

Why didn’t Moore’s character have an affair with another woman? Why didn’t Benning’s character have an affair with a woman? Why is it ALWAYS a dude in these stories?! Same old same old!! I wonder if afterELTON would have like it if it involved two gay males, one of which suddenly decides he desires vagina? I love how the word radical is used to describe anyone who objects to the same tired, misogynistic, homophobic storyline. Hilarious.

thanks! i watched it. i wish julianne moore had answered it in relation to her character instead kind of. i found cholodenko heartening in the npr interview and disheartening in this one, but maybe her emphasis on this film being apolitical will yield more of an impact (you know, since people run at the sight of the big queer agenda or whatever).

Wow. Idiot? Really? I think that is harsh. It’s not even constructive criticism. She made choices that you don’t like – it doesn’t make her an idiot.

No one movie/book/web series/TV show/website etc. can be all things to all people. We are all so desperate for representation that we are quick to turn on people who brings stories to light that we don’t feel truly represent us/our community. Yes, there is a place for criticism. Always. There are things in the media that actively hurt us and there are things that don’t accurately represent any of us and there are things like The Kids Are All Right that only represent some of us. Such is life. From everything I have read about this film (A LOT), there is no way to say that it is going to hurt any of us by portraying us in ways that will degrade us.

If you made a movie about my gf’s relationship with her ex, it would look similar to this. It’s not unheard of, and this is someone’s story, somewhere. I get that we never see the couple just go on and not cheat with a man, or go “back” to men, and I see the frustration. But this story will resonate for some.

I’m with Vikki. And by saying “I’m with Vikki,” I also mean “I kissed Vikki once at a Lesbian Avenger kissing booth.” And to that I would like to add, “And SHE paid ME the dollar.”

Got that out.

I’m not at all an Autostraddle den mother (glad Vikki’s on that), but I am a lesbian dad, and blog as one at my blog, where I reviewed the film (here). My take on this comes from my being a 40-something former Women’s Studies hard-ass gold-star winkie eschewing dyke’s dyke, and I totally appreciate the exhaustion/irritation with the winkie rearing its head again thing.

BUT.

The one thing can add to VIkki’s comment, which says what I’d say, is also: Cholodenko used an identity release donor. She has a son, right about my son’s age. She set out to write an interesting film that took up issues she was thinking about at the time (she and her partner had just finished conceiving and having their kid), and films that are interesting to edgy filmmakers (High Art and Laurel Canyon both go straight for seduction/transgression issues) are unsettling. Interestingly, unsettling to us is this here sub-plot. For obvious, well-founded reasons.

But I really see this in the larger context of what, in a comment on the Julie & Brandy review, I call the Trojan horse argument. Or the worm on a hook argument. I think here, given the irritation at the worm, the worm-on-a-hook argument may go over better. Cholodenko can and has made indie-er films with little regard for hauling in “mainstream” audiences. I’m glad she made this film, and the imagery at the end of it (which is where the punch is in every film, the destination, the point of the journey) is what I want resonating in that mainstream audience’s head.

“I was much more interested in reaching out to the male population than I was concerned about alienating a sector of the lesbian population.”

Wow. No kidding Cholodenko. I like that she is at least honest about her pandering. Any interest to see this is dying quick with comments like this. At least the old films in The Celluloid Closet were made in a time of ignorance when it came to homosexuality. This one is far more insulting.

I also find it interesting that Salon’s film critic, a man, loves it and point out how it is too bad if certain lesbians don’t. I guess if it is about the importance of dick and states all women want it, it must be good in his opinion.

I know this post is old but I had to bring up the tired cissexism of “cock = man” and “~vadge~ = woman” that we’re always seeing on Autostraddle. Is is that hard to consider and remember that “queer” doesn’t always mean privileged cis lesbians?

As we all know so little about the nuances of eachother’s actual lives, the identities we endorse and the privileges therein, it’s hard to be called a ‘privileged cis lesbian’ and take the hostility of this comment in a productive direction.

What does not knowing the intimate details of the commenters’ lives have to do with the fact that reducing men to cocks and women to vaginas is cissexist and that it happens all the time in supposedly queer women’s spaces? If you’re looking for my identity, I am a cis lesbian (the cis part being an enormous privilege.) Calling out cissexism is not hostility.

Am I the only lesbian on the planet who totally hated this movie? I went tonight on the recommendation of Autostraddle and because my partner and I are starting to inseminate using a known donor next month. So, yeah, perhaps my personal life right now colors some of my perspective. But I’m sorry, to call this the “lesbian Brokeback Mountain” as I’ve seen on some sites is just totally demoralizing. I don’t count really painful-to-watch marriage-is-on-the-rocks sex as the equivalent of the totally hot Enis & Jack romp in cowboy tent.

But aside from that, I thought the acting by Moore and Bennett was really horrible. Their relationship didn’t come across as believable (miserable relationships can still be believable). Also, who did the costumes for this? It seemed like the director’s only way to make Moore and Bennett believable as lesbians was by giving both of them a bunch of hippie jewelry to wear — including a hilarious dolphin ring that the character Nic wore on her middle finger or something. I mean — seriously? My partner and I have our share of a hippie side (and jewelry), but it really came across as a lazy way for the director to say, “hey, here’s some lesbians — they love patchouli, expensive Volvos, and Joni Mitchell!” (But, for some inexplicable reason, Nic hates composting…don’t ask why because NOTHING in this movie was explained with much depth.)

And, yeah, the big penis in the room wasn’t just an aside, dear readers. It was basically the point of the movie. I feel like the ONLY character I got to know in the movie was the sperm donor, and Mark Rufolo did a pretty decent job of playing a middle-aged, too old to be too-cool-for-school douchebag (albeit a hot one).

I really wish I would have gotten to know the kids’ characters more — I really didn’t seem to learn anything about how they actually felt about getting to know their sperm donor. Sure I was happy to see them in the end “defending” their family, but I have no idea how or why they got to that point.

This movie really sucked. It made me feel demoralized. It pissed me off and it just made me want to go home with my wife, curl up in our not-miserable relationship, and love her in the best way I know how despite the heterosexim and homophobia that dominate all media representations of our lives.

I was lucky enough to see this at the Berlinale this year. It was shown in a huge venue called the Friedrichstadtpalast (that is used for big cabaret style shows and is not usually a cinema) and was completely sold out.

Okay, so Germany is a very gay friendly country, but tears welled up in my eyes when every single member of the audience rose from their seats at the credits to give a rousing ovation.

I loved the film and think it went in exactly the right direction with the ‘penis’ in the room.

From my well-travelled experiences, penis/lesbian sex occurs more often than you’d think, though it is rarely admitted to in polite company.

Yay! You've decided to leave a comment. That's fantastic. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated by the guidelines laid out in our comment policy. Let's have a personal and meaningful conversation and thanks for stopping by!